BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Complainant,
)
vs .
)
PCB No. 06-115
(Enforcement - Land, Water)
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL,
)
LLC, an Illinois limited liability corporation,
)
and NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC,
)
an Illinois limited liability corporation,
)
Respondents
.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO
:
Delbert D. Haschmeyer
Division Chief of Environmental Enforcement
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph St., 20th Floor
500 South Second Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Springfield, IL 62706
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Pollution Control Board on behalf of Respondents National City Environmental, LLC and
National City Recycling, LLC its Answer and the Appearances of John B. Simon and Bill S
.
Forcade. A copy of each document is herewith served upon you
.
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
RECEIVED
FEB 2 7 2006
John B. Simon
Bill S. Forcade
Steven M. Siros
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
Dated: February
27, 2006
Respectfully submitted,
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability corporation, and
NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability cor oration,
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jason E. Yearout, an attorney, hereby certify that I have served National City
Environmental, LLC's and National City Recycling, LLC's Answer and the Appearances of John
B. Simon and Bill S. Forcade, via first-class mail with postage fully prepaid, upon the following
on this 27th day of February, 2006
:
TO
:
Delbert D. Haschmeyer
Division Chief of Environmental Enforcement
Assistant Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 West Randolph St., 20th Floor
500 South Second Street
Chicago, IL 6060
Springfield, IL 62706
By :
a
lk-)4
Jason E
earout
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
R
)
RE
EIVED
Complainant,
)
FED 2 7 2006
vs .
)
PCB No. 06-115
Pollution OF
STATE
Board
(Enforcement - Land, Water)
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL,
LLC, an Illinois limited liability corporation,
and NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability corporation,
Respondents .
APPEARANCE
Pursuant to 35 111. Admin. Code § 101.400(a), I hereby file my appearance in this
proceeding, on behalf of National City Environmental, LLC and National City Recycling, LLC
.
Respectfully submitted,
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability corporation, and
NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability corporation,
By :
i'
John B. Simon
John B. Simon
Bill S . Forcade
Steven M . Siros
JENNER.& BLOCK LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
Dated: February 27, 2006
THIS FILING IS SUBMITED ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARIheceBv-
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
vs .
)
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL,
)
LLC, an Illinois limited liability corporation,
)
and NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC,
)
an Illinois limited liability corporation,
)
Respondents
.
)
APPEARANCE
Pursuant to 35 Ill. Admin. Code § 101 .400(a), I hereby file my appearance in this
proceeding, on behalf of National City Environmental, LLC and National City Recycling, LLC
.
Respectfully submitted,
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability corporation, and
NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability corporation,
S
John B. Simon
Bill S. Forcade
Steven M. Siros
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 222-9350
Dated: February 27, 2006
PCB No. 06-115
(Enforcement - Land, Water)
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CLERK'S OFFICE
FEg 2 7 2006
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
Complainant,
)
vs .
)
PCB No. 06-115
(Enforcement - Land, Water)
Respondents .
)
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL,
LLC, an Illinois limited liability corporation,
and NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability corporation,
RESPONDENTS NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC AND
NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC'S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW COME Respondents, NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC and
NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC (collectively, "St. Louis Auto Shredding" or "SLAS"),
by their attorneys, and respond to the Complaint and state as follows :
COUNT I
PERMIT VIOLATIONS AT THE NORTHWEST UNIT (ACTIVE AREA)
1
.
This count is brought on behalf of the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, on her own motion and at the
request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency ("Illinois EPA"), pursuant to the terms
and conditions of Section 42 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
("Act"), 415 ILCS
5/42 (2004) .
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph I of the Complaint contains conclusions of law,
no response is required .
SLAS admits the remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 of the
Complaint .
2
.
The Illinois EPA is an agency of the State of Illinois created by the Illinois
General Assembly in Section 4 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/4 (2004), and charged,
inter alia,
with the
duty of enforcing the Act
.
R
e
,lOFFICE®
FEB 2
?2'1i
STATE OF ILLIivOis
Pollution Control
Bottrn
ANSWER
:
To the extent that Paragraph 2 contains conclusions of law, no response is
required. SLAS admits the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint .
3 .
At all times relevant to this complaint, NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL,
LLC, was the owner and NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC, was the operator of a facility
located in National City, St. Clair County, Illinois ("facility"). The facility is commonly known
as, and the Respondents are hereinafter collectively referred to as, "St. Louis Auto Shredding ."
ANSWER
:
Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint." As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies each and every one
of them. However, SLAS admits that National City Environmental, LLC is the current owner
and National City Recycling, LLC is the current operator of a facility located in National City,
Illinois .
4 .
The operations of St. Louis Auto Shredding at the facility include the shredding of
automobiles and white goods
(e.g. household appliances), the recycling of materials, and the
disposal of waste in on-site landfills, which are designated as the Northwest Unit (Active Area)
and the Southeast Unit (Closed Area) .
ANSWER :
SLAS admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint
.
5
.
The Southeast Unit has been closed under the 807 regulations and ceased
accepting waste in September 1992 .
The Northwest Unit operates under the 814 Subpart C
regulations
.
ANSWER
:
To the extent that Paragraph 5 contains conclusions of law, no response is
required. SLAS admits the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint .
6 .
The Illinois EPA has previously issued permits to St . Louis Auto Shredding,
including Permits 1994-065-LFM and 1996-293-SP
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 6 contains conclusions of law, no response is
required .
SLAS admits that Illinois EPA ("IEPA") has issued to SLAS several different
operating and construction permits, and various Significant Modifications thereto, including but
not limited to those contained in Permit Log Nos. 1994-065-LFM and 1996-293-SP . SLAS lacks
2
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6
of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them .
7 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Vol .11, ch. 5,
pp. 19-20 -
Elimination of Trench 3,
provides :
The NW fill area was originally permitted for development
in
1976 .
.
. . The waste in Trench 3 will be removed so that the liner
and leachate drainage/collection systems may be installed over the
entire NW fill area
.
.
.
Alternatively, St. Louis Auto Shredding
may submit for approval, a modified design for this portion of the
site (eliminating the need for removal) or a modified
design
appropriate for disposal of the waste as characterized .
.
.
.
ANSWER :
The allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint require no
response, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself
.
8 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .10, provides :
The following monitoring points are to be used
in
the groundwater
detection monitoring program for this
facility (Wells G32M,
G33M and G34M shall be installed in locations shown on Figure 1
of the addendum dated February 27, 2001 to Application Log No
.
2000-362) .
. . #G32M, #G33M and #G34M Installation date @ 15
May 2001
.
.
. @ Wells must be installed in order to obtain 2
nd
quarter 2001 sampling
.
ANSWER :
The allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint require no
response, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .12(d), provides :
The application groundwater quality standards (AGQS) are subject
to the following conditions
:
d .
AGQS values must be determined for all of the parameters
which appear in either Lists GI or G2. AGQS values must
also be established for the dissolved constituents listed in
G1. These shall be proposed in a permit application to be
submitted to the Illinois EPA no later than October 31,
1994
.
The AGQS values shall be calculated using the
9 .
3
statistical method described on page 15 of Attachment 11
to the application, Log No. 1994-065
.
ANSWER :
The allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint require no
response, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself
.
10 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V . 14, provides
:
A complete listing of MAPC's for each parameter listed in
Condition V.12 for each well within the zone of attenuation
identified in Condition V.10 shall be proposed in a permit
application to be submitted to the Illinois EPA no later than
October 31, 1994 .
ANSWER :
The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint require no
response, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself
.
11 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .17, provides :
Within 90 days of confirmation of any monitored increase, the
operator shall
submit
a permit application
for significant
modification to begin an assessment monitoring program in order
to determine whether the solid waste disposal facility is the source
of the contamination and to provide information needed to carry
out a groundwater impact assessment in accordance with 35 IAC
811 .819(b)
.
ANSWER :
The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint require no
response, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself .
12
.
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .221, provides
:
The operator shall implement the revised assessment monitoring
plan dated July 13, 2000, and approved as Modification No . 2 .
.
.
.
All data collected during assessment and the results of the
assessment activities shall be submitted to the Illinois EPA, along
with
findings and
recommendations as an
application
for
significant modification no later than December 31, 2001 . During
assessment monitoring and pending approval of the assessment
report, piezometers P26M, P22M and P24M shall be monitored in
accordance with Special Condition V .12 and V .20 .
4
ANSWER :
The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint require no
response, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself. SLAS further notes that no
"Condition V .221" exists for Permit No. 1994-065-LFM .
13 .
Per permit 1994-065-LFM, St. Louis Auto Shredding was to submit maximum
allowable predicted concentrations ("MAPC") and applicable groundwater quality standards
("AGQS") values in order to determine site-specific groundwater quality standards . St. Louis
Auto Shredding did submit the AGQS values via a permit application in July 1996, but the
application was denied by the Illinois EPA in September 1996
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 13 of the Complaint cites Permit 1994-065
LFM, no response is required, as the language of the Permit speaks for itself. SLAS lacks
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13
of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them . Responding further, SLAS
states that in addition to its July 1996 permit application, on several occasions subsequent to July
1996, SLAS submitted AGQS and MAPC values to IEPA. Each submission complied with all
applicable IEPA regulations
.
14 .
In October 1998, the Illinois EPA conducted a groundwater sampling event and a
groundwater compliance inspection. As a result of this inspection, the Illinois EPA determined
the existence of various compliance deficiencies; the Illinois EPA subsequently issued violation
notices ("VN") to the site owner and operator. In St. Louis Auto Shredding's Compliance
Commitment Agreement, the Respondents pledged to submit the MAPC and AGQS proposed
values as a permit application by April 1999 . This application was received as #199-146, but
contained deficiencies. St. Louis Auto Shredding requested a meeting with the Illinois EPA in
September 1999, and the result was that the Respondents agreed to submit an Assessment Plan
by November 1999 .
ANSWER :
SLAS admits that it received violation notices from IEPA on or about
December 30, 1998, and further admits that it submitted a Compliance Commitment Agreement
to IEPA on or about February 8, 1999. SLAS further states that it submitted permit renewal
applications and revised AGQS and MAPC values to IEPA in early April of 1999. Each
submission complied with all applicable IEPA regulations, and SLAS specifically denies that
these applications and values contained deficiencies
.
SLAS further states that IEPA provided comments on SLAS's applications and values in
July of 1999,
and
SLAS promptly
and
completely responded to
those comments
.
Representatives of the parties met in September 1999 to discuss technical aspects of these
submissions. Shortly thereafter, SLAS submitted an Assessment Monitoring Plan, which IEPA
approved on August 11, 2000 as Modification No . 2 to its operating permit for the Northwest
(active) Unit (No. 1994-065-LFM)
.
SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them
.
15
.
The Assessment Plan was submitted and approved by the Illinois EPA . From the
Assessment Plan, a Groundwater Assessment Report was submitted to the Illinois EPA as permit
application 2002-182 . This Assessment Report was to contain additional data and information
essential for review of applications 1999-146 and 1999-134. On January 31, 2003, permit
applications 2002-182, 1999-134 and 1999-146 were denied .
ANSWER
:
SLAS admits that IEPA approved its Assessment Monitoring Plan on
August 11, 2000. SLAS further admits that it submitted a Groundwater Assessment Report to
IEPA under Permit Log No. 2002-182. SLAS further states that it was in regular communication
with IEPA representatives regarding the contents and technical aspects of this Report from the
time it submitted its Groundwater Assessment Report until IEPA denied SLAS's permit
applications, which complied with all applicable statutes and regulations, on January 31, 2003
.
For example, SLAS provided extensive comments on a September 25, 2002 IEPA draft permit
denial letter, and numerous representatives of both SLAS and IEPA met on November 22, 2002
to discuss the substantive aspects of both SLAS's pending permit applications and IEPA's draft
denial letter. As a result of that meeting, SLAS submitted additional information and materials
to IEPA on or about January 28, 2003 . Each of the submissions to IEPA described above met all
applicable IEPA regulatory requirements, and the sum of information SLAS provided IEPA on
6
these topics was more than sufficient for IEPA to issue SLAS the operating permits to which it is
entitled .
SLAS further states that IEPA, a mere three days later, denied SLAS's permit
applications, which complied with all applicable statutes and regulations, on January 31, 2003
.
SLAS further states that it appealed those permit denials in a timely manner to the Board on
March 5, 2003 (PCB Case Nos. 03-138, 03-139, and 03-140). These appeals were consolidated
on March 20, 2003 and remain pending with the Board . To date, IEPA has filed
no
appearance
before the Board in these cases, and has in no other way responded to these permit appeals
.
16
.
Thus, at all times relevant to this complaint, continuing until on or about
January 21, 2005, St. Louis Auto Shredding has disposed of waste in the Northwest Unit (Active
Area) without an operating permit issued by the Illinois EPA
.
ANSWER :
Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint ." As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies each and every one
of them. In addition, SLAS specifically denies that it has disposed of waste in the Northwest
Unit without an operating permit .
SLAS also states that each of its permit applications,
applications for significant modification, or other submissions to IEPA conformed with all
applicable statutes and regulations .
17 .
On November 26; 2002, and February 3, 2003, the Illinois EPA conducted
inspections of the facility
.
ANSWER :
SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one
of them .
18 .
As a result of these inspections, the Illinois EPA issued VN-2002-01055 and M-
2002-1057 to the Respondents. A meeting between St. Louis Auto Shredding and the Illinois
EPA was held on April 18, 2003. On May 1, 2003, St. Louis Auto Shredding submitted a
revised Compliance Commitment Agreement and waived the requirements of Section 31
.
7
ANSWER :
SLAS admits that the IEPA issued VN-2002-01055 and M-2002-01057 to
SLAS, and that its representatives met with IEPA representatives on or about April 18, 2003
.
SLAS further admits that it submitted a revised Compliance Commitment Agreement to IEPA
that waived the requirements of Section 31 (a) on or about May 1, 2003 . SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
18 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them
.
19 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM requires that St. Louis Auto Shredding install liner and
leachate drainage/collection systems within the Northwest Unit (Active Area) ; this installation as
originally designed would first require the removal of waste from a portion of the Northwest
Unit (Active Area) designated as Trench 3. This permit allows, alternatively, St. Louis Auto
Shredding to submit to the Illinois EPA a modified design for this portion (eliminating the need
for removal) or a modified design appropriate for disposal of the waste as characterized
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 19 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language of the permit speaks
for itself. Responding further, SLAS states that it in fact has satisfied the permit conditions set
forth in Permit 1994-065-LFM by excavating Trench 3 and placing the excavated materials from
this Trench (after re-processing and re-characterization) in the site's West Cell, which IEPA
approved for operation on January 21, 2005 (as Modification No . 4 to the operating permit for
the Northwest Unit)
.
20 .
Commencing on some date known to Respondent and continuing to some date
known to Respondent, St. Louis Auto Shredding has failed to either remove the waste from
Trench 3 of the Northwest Unit (Active Area) or submit to the Illinois EPA a modified design for
this portion
.
ANSWER :
SLAS denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint
.
Responding further, SLAS states that it, on several occasions, made comprehensive proposals to
IEPA concerning excavating Trench 3, processing of those materials, and disposing of the
resulting waste in a new cell. IEPA refused to grant a permit for construction of a new cell based
exclusively on an erroneous legal interpretation of the Board's financial assurance regulations
.
8
IEPA sought to impose such
ultra vires
and unnecessary conditions on those proposals prior to
issuing a permit to SLAS .
After SLAS, under protest, provided non-discounted financial
assurances, IEPA approved Modification No. 4 to the Northwest Unit's operating permit on
January 21, 2005; whereupon SLAS immediately proceeded to excavate and re-process Trench 3
materials. SLAS further states that it has completely removed the material from Trench 3,
processed said material, and disposed of the resulting waste in the site's West Cell
.
See
Answer
to Paragraph 19,
supra.
IEPA acknowledged this fact during a site inspection it conducted' in
December of 2005 .
21 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Conditions V.3c and V.3d, also requires that St. Louis
Auto Shredding shall sample and test upgradient wells twice . By December 31, 1994, the
operator shall submit to the Illinois EPA an application for significant modification which
includes the following information :
c .
The groundwater data from at least two sampling events,
including an evaluation, comparing the AGQS values listed
in Condition V.12 of this permit to the new data from
upgradient wells G20S, G20M and G20D
.
If the new groundwater data indicates a significant change
from the AGQS values in this permit, the operator shall
include a reevaluation of the groundwater impact
assessment and a proposal for the establishment of new
AGQS and MAPC values .
One of the primary purposes of such an application is to provide a re-evaluation of the
groundwater . impact assessment in the event that sampling data indicates
a
significant change in
groundwater quality. At all times relevant to this complaint, St. Louis Auto Shredding has failed
to submit to the Illinois EPA an approved application for the significant modification of permit
to address the necessary groundwater issues
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 21 of the Complaint quotes or otherwise
characterizes language from an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the Permit
language speaks for itself. Additionally, Complainant has failed to specify the time period
denoted . by the phrase "at all times relevant to this complaint ." As a result, SLAS lacks
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21, and
therefore denies each and every one of them
.
Responding further, SLAS states that it has addressed these groundwater issues by
submitting applications
for significant
modification
to
Permit
1994-065-LFM, which
applications contained approvable terms and conditions and satisfied all applicable IEPA
regulations
.
Nonetheless, IEPA denied those applications, even though the applications
complied with all applicable statutes and regulations. Furthermore, to the extent Paragraph 21
alleges or infers any delay in SLAS's submission of an application for significant modification,
SLAS denies same as any delay was caused by IEPA's failure to timely approve SLAS's
applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA regulatory requirements
.
22 .
Commencing on some date known to Respondent, St . Louis Auto Shredding has
failed to install groundwater monitoring wells as specified in permit 1994-065-LFM,
Condition V .10, to-wit: wells G32M, G33M and G34M .
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 22 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes language from an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the Permit language
speaks for itself To the extent that Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law,
no response is required
.
SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the
Complaint .
23 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .12(d), requires that AGQS values must be
determined for all of the parameters which appear in either Lists G1 or G2. These were to be
proposed in a permit application to be submitted to the Illinois EPA by no later than October 31,
1994. To date, no approved application for significant modification containing AGQS values has
been submitted to the Illinois EPA
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 23 of the Complaint quotes or otherwise
construes language from an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the Permit language
speaks for itself.
SLAS denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23 of the
Complaint. Responding further, SLAS states that it has submitted numerous AGQS proposals to
10
IEPA since 1994, each of which met the requirements of all applicable IEPA regulations . IEPA
has denied each of these applications for reasons unrelated to the merits of the AGQS proposals
themselves .
24 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V.14, requires a complete listing of MAPC's
for each parameter listed in Condition V .12 for each well within the zone of attenuation
identified in Condition V.10 to be proposed in a permit application submitted to the Illinois EPA
no later than October 31, 1994. To date, no approved MAPC list has been submitted as a permit
application to the Illinois EPA
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 24 of the Complaint quotes or otherwise
construes language from an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the Permit language
speaks for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the
Complaint. Responding further, SLAS states that it has submitted numerous MAPCs lists to
IEPA since 1994, each of which met the requirements of all applicable IEPA regulations . IEPA
has rejected each MAPC list for reasons unrelated to the merits of the MAPCs proposals
themselves
.
25
.
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .17, requires that within 90 days of
confirmation of any monitored increase, the operator shall submit a permit application for
significant modification to begin an assessment monitoring program in order to determine
whether the solid waste disposal facility is the source of the contamination and to provide
information needed to carry out a groundwater impact assessment in accordance with 35 Ill
.
Adm. Code 811.319(b). To date, no permit has been acquired for a significant modification to
begin an assessment monitoring program has been submitted to the Illinois EPA, although the
facility has monitored increases as defined by Condition V .16
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 25 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the language of an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the Permit language
speaks for itself. SLAS further notes that the last sentence of Paragraph 25 in unclear as to
whether it alleges that SLAS has not acquired a permit or whether SLAS has not submitted an
application for significant modification
.
1 1
SLAS denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint .
Responding further, SLAS states that it has submitted applications on several occasions for
significant modifications to begin an assessment monitoring program, each of which satisfied the
requirements of all applicable IEPA regulations . IEPA has denied these applications for reasons
unrelated to the merits of the applications themselves .
26 .
Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V.21,
requires that
the
operator
shall
implement the revised assessment monitoring plan dated July 13, 2000, and approved as
Modification No. 2. All data collected during assessment and the results of the assessment
activities shall be submitted to the Illinois EPA, along with findings and recommendations as an
application for significant modification no later than December 31, 2001 . To date, no approved
assessment report has been submitted, as the assessment report which was submitted as permit
application 2002-182 was denied by the Illinois EPA on January 21, 2003
.
ANSWER
:
To the extent that Paragraph 26 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the language of an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the Permit language
speaks for itself.
SLAS denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the
Complaint .
Responding further, SLAS states that it did submit and implement an adequate
assessment monitoring plan that complied with all applicable IEPA regulations, and further
states that it was in regular communication with IEPA representatives regarding the contents and
technical aspects of this plan from the time it submitted its Groundwater Assessment Report until
IEPA denied SLAS's permit applications, which complied with applicable requirements. For
example, SLAS provided extensive comments on a September 25, 2002 draft denial letter, and
both SLAS and IEPA met on November 22, 2002 to discuss SLAS's pending permit applications
and IEPA's draft denial letter . As a result of this meeting, SLAS provided IEPA with additional
information and materials on or about January 28, 2003
.
SLAS further states that on January 31, 2003, just three days thereafter, IEPA denied
SLAS's permit applications, each of which complied with all applicable statutes and regulations
.
SLAS appealed those permit denials in a timely manner to the Board on March 5, 2003 (PCB
12
Case Nos. 03-138, 03-139, and 03-140) . These appeals were consolidated on March 20, 2003
and remain pending with the Board: To date, IEPA has filed no appearance before the Board
in
these cases, and has in no other way responded to these permit appeals
.
27 .
Section 21 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21 (2004) provides, in pertinent part, as
follows :
No personal shall :
d .
Conduct any waste-storage, waste-treatment, or waste-
disposal operation :
1
.
Without a permit granted by the Agency or in
violation of any conditions imposed by such
permit .
.
.
.
;or
2 .
In violation of any regulations or standards adopted
by the Board under this Act ; or
e .
Dispose, treat, store or abandon any waste, or transport any
waste into this State for disposal, treatment, storage or
abandonment, except at a site or facility which meets the
requirements' of this Act and of regulations and standards
thereunder
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 27 of the Complaint quotes language from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the "Act"), no response
is
required, as the language of the
Act speaks for itself.
28
.
By conducting waste-disposal operations in the Northwest Unit (Active Area)
without an operating permit issued by the Illinois EPA, the Respondents have violated
Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5121(d)(1) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 28 cites to, or otherwise construes the language
of, the Act, no response is required, as the Act's language speaks for itself SLAS denies the
remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. SLAS specifically denies that it has
conducted waste-disposal operations in the Northwest Unit without an appropriate operating
permit in violation of Section 21(d)(1) of the Act
.
1 3
29. By failing to either timely remove the waste from Trench 3 of the Northwest Unit
(Active Area) or submit to the Illinois EPA a modified design for this portion, the Respondents
violated Permit 1994-065-LFM and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21
(d)(1) (2004) .
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 29 cites or otherwise construes either the Act or
an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language of such documents speaks for
itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and specifically
denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act
.
Responding further, SLAS states that it has in fact removed the material from Trench 3,
as described in its answer to Paragraph 19, supra .
Further, to the extent any delays occurred
concerning SLAS's removal of material from Trench 3, such delays were caused by IEPA's
failure to timely approve SLAS's permit applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA
regulatory requirements
.
30 .
By failing to submit to the Illinois EPA an approved application for the significant
modification of permit to address the necessary groundwater issues, the Respondents have
violated Permit 1994-065-LFM, Conditions V .3c and V.3d and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 30 cites or otherwise construes the Act or an
IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language of such documents speaks for itself.
SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and specifically denies
that it has violated Section 21 (d)(1) of the Act
.
Responding further, SLAS specifically denies that it has failed to submit to the IEPA an
application for significant modification relating to groundwater issues
.
Additionally, to the
extent any delays occurred concerning approval of SLAS's applications for significant
modification, such delays were caused by IEPA's failure to timely approve SLAS's permit
applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA regulatory requirements
.
14
31 .
By failing to timely install groundwater monitoring wells as
specified, to-wit
:
wells G32M, G33M and G34M, the Respondents have
violated Permit 1994-065-LFM,
Condition V .10 and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 31 cites or otherwise construes either the Act or
an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language from those documents speaks for
itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and specifically
denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act
.
Additionally, to the extent any delays
occurred concerning the installation of these wells, such delays were caused by IEPA's failure to
timely approve SLAS's permit applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA regulatory
requirements
.
32 .
By failing to submit to the Illinois EPA an approved application for significant
modification containing AGQS values, the Respondents have violated Permit
1994-0665-LFM,
Condition V.12(d) and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004).
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 32 cites or otherwise construes either the Act or
an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language from these documents speaks for
itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and specifically
denies that it hass violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act .
Responding further, SLAS specifically denies that it has failed to submit to IEPA a
sufficient application for significant modification containing AGQS values. Additionally, to the
extent any delays occurred concerning the approval of such values, the delays were
caused by
IEPA's failu e to timely approve SLAS's permit applications, all of which
. met all applicable
IEPA regulatory requirements
.
33
.
By failing to submit to the Illinois EPA an approved MAPC list as a permit
application to the Illinois
EPA,
Respondents
have
violated
Permit
1994-065-LFM,
Condition V .14 and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004) .
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 33 cites or otherwise construes language from the
Act or an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language from those documents
1 5
speaks for itself SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and
specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act . Responding further, SLAS
specifically denies that it has failed to submit to IEPA a sufficient MAPC list as a permit
application to IEPA. Additionally, to the extent any delays occurred concerning the approval of
a sufficient MAPC list, such delays were caused by IEPA's failure to timely approve SLAS's
permit applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA regulatory requirements
.
34 .
By failing to submit a permit application for a significant modification to begin an
assessment monitoring program to the Illinois EPA, although the facility monitored increases as
defined
by
Condition V.16, the
Respondents
have
violated
Permit
1994-065-LFM,
Condition V.17 and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004)
.
ANSWER
:
To the extent Paragraph 34 cites or otherwise construes language from the
Act or an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language from those documents
speaks for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and
specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act . Responding further, SLAS
specifically denies that it has failed to submit a permit application to IEPA for a significant
modification to begin an assessment monitoring program . Additionally, to the extent any delays
occurred concerning approval of SLAS's proposed assessment monitoring program, such delays
were caused by IEPA's failure to timely approve SLAS's permit applications, all of which met
all applicable IEPA regulatory requirements
.
35 .
By failing to submit an approved assessment report to the Illinois EPA, the
Respondents have violated Permit 1994-065-LFM, Condition V .21 and thereby violated Section
21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004) .
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 35 cites or otherwise construes language from the
Act or an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language in those documents
speaks for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and
specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act . Responding further, SLAS
16
specifically denies that it has failed to submit a sufficient assessment report to EPA
.
Additionally, to the extent any delays occurred concerning the approval of SLAS's proposed
assessment report, such delays were caused by IEPA's failure to timely approve SLAS's permit
applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA regulatory requirements
.
COUNT II
PERMIT VIOLATIONS AT SOUTHEAST UNIT (CLOSED AREA)
1-27. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1 through
27 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Count II
.
ANSWER :
SLAS incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 27 above. SLAS
further notes that the paragraph numbering of the Complaint from this point forward is not
consecutive, e.g. this paragraph . should be numbered 36, the next 37 and
so on. In order to
preserve its rights, SLAS thus incorporates its responses to Paragraph 28 through 35 above
.
28 .
Permit 1996-293-SP, Attachment A, Monitoring Program, Item 6 .b., provides :
The permittee shall conclude that a
. significant change in
groundwater quality has occurred
if.
.
. the value for any parameter
exceeds :
The Class I groundwater quality standards listed in
Subpart D of 35 IAC 620 Standards (this class applies until an
adequate determination has been made by the . Permittee that
another class applies pursuant to Subpart B of 35 IAC 620
Standards.)
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint require no response, as
.
the Permit language speaks for itself
.
29 .
Permit 1996-293-SP; Attachment A, Monitoring Program, Item 8.b., provides :
In the event a significant change in groundwater quality has
occurred or has been confirmed, the permittee shall : Submit an
assessment monitoring plan within 30 days of the significant
change as determined in Item No . 6 or No. 7 above in the form of
a supplemental permit application . The assessment monitoring
plan
shall include appropriate methods for determining the source
of the increase, the potential threat to human health and the
environment and the concentration and extent of the contaminants
1 7
if any .
The assessment monitoring plan shall, at a minimum,
include expanded sampling requirements for the affected well(s)
and shall be implemented within 30 days of approval from the
Illinois EPA .
ANSWER
:
The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint require no response, as
the Permit language speaks for itself
30 .
Permit 1996-293-SP, requires that St . Louis Auto Shredding determine from the
groundwater sampling data whether the Class I groundwater quality standards have been
exceeded. One of the primary purposes of such determination is to propose pursuant to permit
1996,293-SF, Attachment A, Monitoring Program,
Item 8.b,
a groundwater assessment
monitoring plan in the event that sampling data indicates a significant change in groundwater
quality .
ANSWER :
SLAS admits that the IEPA issued Permit No. 1996-293-SP. To the extent
that Paragraph 30 of the Complaint cites or otherwise construes language from an IEPA-issued
permit, no response is required, as the Permit language speaks for itself . SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph
30 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them
.
31 .
At all times relevant to this complaint, St . Louis Auto Shredding has failed to
submit to the Illinois EPA a determination from the groundwater sampling data whether the
Class I groundwater quality standards have been exceeded
.
ANSWER
:
Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint ." As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies each and every one
of them .
32 .
At all times relevant to this complaint, St. Louis Auto Shredding has failed to
submit a ground water assessment monitoring plan to the Illinois EPA
.
ANSWER :
Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the please
"at all times relevant to this complaint." As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a
1 8
belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies each and every one
of them .
33 .
By failing to submit to the Illinois EPA a determination from the groundwater
sampling data whether the Class I groundwater quality standards have been exceeded, the
Respondents have violated Permit 1996-293-SP, Attachment A, Monitoring Program, Item 6:b.,
and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(1) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 33 of the Complaint cites or otherwise construes
language from the Act or from an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language
from those documents speaks for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 33
of the Complaint, and specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act
.
34 .
By failing to submit a ground water assessment monitoring plan to the Illinois
EPA, the Respondents have violated Permit 1996-293-SP, Attachment A, Monitoring Program,
Item 8 .b., and thereby violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5121(d)(1) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent Paragraph 34 of the Complaint cites or otherwise construes
language from the Act or from an IEPA-issued permit, no response is required, as the language
from those. documents speaks for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34
of the Complaint, and specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(d)(1) of the Act
.
COUNT III
WASTE DISPOSAL VIOLATIONS
1-27 .
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1 through
27 ofCount I as paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Count III
.
ANSWER :
SLAS reincorporates its responses to all prior Paragraphs above
.
28 .
Section 807 .313 of the Board's Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill . Adm. Code
807.313, provides as follows :
No person shall cause or allow operation of a sanitary landfill so as
to cause or threaten or allow the discharge of any contaminants
into the environment in any State so as to cause or tend to cause
water pollution in Illinois, either alone or in combination with
matter from other sources, or so as to violate regulations or
standards adopted by the Pollution Control Board under the Act
.
19
ANSWER
:
The allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the regulations speaks for itself. Responding further, SLAS denies that it has
operated or is operating or developing a sanitary landfill
.
29 .
Section 807.315 of the Board's Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill . Adm. Code
807.315, provides as follows :
No person shall cause or allow the development or operation of a
sanitary landfill unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of
the Agency that no damage or hazard will result to waters of the
State because of the development and operation of the sanitary
landfill .
ANSWER
:
The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the regulations speaks for itself Responding further, SLAS denies that it has
operated or is operating or developing a sanitary landfill
.
30
.
At all times relevant to this complaint, St . Louis Auto Shredding has disposed of
waste at a site that does not meet the requirements of the Act and the regulations thereunder
.
ANSWER :
Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint." Complainant has also failed to delineate to which
operating unit(s) of the site these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore
denies each and every one of them . Additionally, SLAS specifically denies that it has disposed
of waste at a site not meeting the requirements of either the Act or IEPA regulations
.
31
.
At all times relevant to this complaint, St . Louis Auto Shredding has allowed the
discharge of contaminants into the groundwater as prohibited by Section 807 .313 of the Board's
Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 Ill . Adm. Code 807 .33
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 31 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes IEPA's regulations, no response is required, as the language of the regulations speaks
for itself. Additionally, Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint." Complainant has also failed to delineate to which
20
operating unit(s) of the site these allegations apply . As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore
denies each and every one of them. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph of
the Complaint, and specifically denies that it has violated Section 807 .313 of the Board's Waste
Disposal Regulations. SLAS further states that it has not violated "35 Ill . Adm. Code 807.33,"
as cited in this Paragraph.
32 .
At all times relevant to this complaint, St . Louis Auto Shredding has caused or
allowed the development or operation of a sanitary landfill without proving to the satisfaction of
the Illinois EPA that no damage or hazard will result to waters of the State because of the
development and operation of the sanitary landfill as prohibited by Section 807 .315 of the
Boards Waste Disposal Regulations, 35 111. Adm. Code 807 .315
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 32 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes IEPA's regulations, no response is required, as the language of the regulations speaks
for itself.. Additionally, Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint." Complainant has also failed to delineate to which
operating unit(s) of the site these allegations apply. As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore
denies each and every one of them. SLAS also specifically denies that it has violated Section
807.315 of the Board's Waste Disposal Regulations .
33 .
By disposing of waste at a site that does not meet the requirements of the Act and
the regulations thereunder, the Respondents have violated Section 21(e) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/21(e) (2004).
ANSWER
:
To the extent that Paragraph 33 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for itself . SLAS
denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint. Responding further,
Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the operating unit(s) of the site to
which these allegations apply. As
a
result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as
2 1
to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and every one of them . SLAS also
specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(e) of the Act .
34
.
By conducting waste-disposal operations in violation of the regulations or
standards adopted by the Board under this Act, the Respondents have violated Section 21(d)(2)
of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(d)(2) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 34 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for itself. SLAS
denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint, and specifically denies that
it is or has been conducting waste-disposal operations in violation of Section 21(d)(2) of the Act
.
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the operating
unit(s) of the site to which these allegations apply. As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them .
35
.
These violations have been willful, knowing or repeated and will continue
unabated unless and until enjoined by this Court
.
ANSWER :
SLAS denies the allegations in this Paragraph of the Complaint
.
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the operating
unit(s) of the site to which these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them .
In addition, SLAS states that throughout its course of dealings with IEPA, SLAS has
been both cooperative and accommodating regarding IEPA's myriad demands and inquiries
.
SLAS's cooperation also included submission of numerous sets of facility and environmental
information and plans, which in total provided ]EPA sufficient information to issue operating
22
permits to SLAS. Nonetheless, IEPA unreasonably delayed approving in a timely manner .
SLAS's permit applications, all of which met all applicable IEPA regulatory requirements .
COUNT IV
WATER POLLUTION VIOLATIONS
1-27 .
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs l through
27 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Count IV .
ANSWER:
SLAS reincorporates its responses to all prior Paragraphs above .
28 .
Section 12 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12 (2004), provides, in pertinent part, as
follows
:
No person shall :
a.
Cause or threaten or allow the discharge of any
contaminants into the environment in an State so as to
cause or tend to cause water pollution in Illinois, either
alone or in combination with matter from other sources, or
so as to violate regulations or standards adopted by the
Pollution Control Board under this Act ;
d .
Deposit any contaminants upon the land in such place and
manner so as to create a water pollution hazard
;
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself.
29 .
Section 3.170 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3 .170 (2004), provides as follows :
"Contaminant' is any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor or
any form of energy, from whatever source
.
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself.
30 .
Section 3 .545 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3 .545 (2004), provides as follows
:
"Water pollution" is such alteration of the physical, thermal,
chemical, biological or radioactive properties of any waters of the
State, or such discharge of any contaminant into any waters of the
23
State, as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters
harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or
welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural,
recreational, or other legitimate uses, or to livestock, wild animals,
birds, fish, or other aquatic life .
ANSWER
:
The allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself
31
.
Section 3 .550 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3 .550 (2004), provides as follows
:
"Waters" means all accumulations of water, surface and
underground, natural and artificial, public and private, or parts
thereof, which are wholly or partially within, flow through, or
border upon this State
.
ANSWER
:
The allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself .
32 .
Section 620,405 of the Board's Groundwater Quality Standards, 35 Ill. Adm .
Code 620.405, provides as follows :
No person shall cause, threaten or allow the release of any
contaminant to groundwater so as to cause a groundwater quality
standard set forth in this Subpart to be exceeded
;
***
24
a)
Inorganic Chemical Constituents
:
Constituent
Boron
Units
mg/L
Standard
2 .0
Iron
mg/L
5 .0
Manganese
mg/L
0.15
***
Sulfate
mg/L
400 .0
***
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L
1,200
b)
Organic Chemical Constituents :
*Denotes a carcinogen
.
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the regulations speaks for itself .
34 .
During the November 26, 2002, inspection, the Illinois EPA noted the following
in its review of the facility's groundwater for the May 2002 sampling event :
SOUTHEAST UNIT
Sample Result
Total ug/l
Well
Number Contaminant
Constituent
Standard (mg/L)
Vinyl Chloride*
0.002
25
Class I Standard
Exceedance Total ug/1
G1OS
Bo on
2630
2000
Iron
40800
5000
Manganese
1340
1150
TDS
2470
1200
G1OM
Iron
24500
5000
Manganese
1760
150
GIOD
Iron
20200
.
5000
Manganese
336
150
TDS
1650
1200
Vinyl Chloride
7.08
2
G12S
Iron
39200
5000
Manganese
4650
150
Well
Number
. Contaminant
Well
Number Contaminant
G21S
Selenium
NORTHWEST UNIT
26
Sample Result
Total ug/l
Sample Result
Total ug/l
6
Class I Standard
Exceedance Total ug/l
GW Limit
Total ug/I
4
G12M
Iron
9620
5000
Manganese
590
150
G12D
Iron
17000
5000
Manganese
420
150
G13S
Sulfate
406 mg/I
400 mg/1
Manganese
451
150
G14S
Boron
2410
2000
Iron
18900
5000
Manganese
2570
150
TDS
1470
1200
G14M
Iron
12400
5000
Manganese
1160
150
G15S
Sulfate
631 (mg/1)
400 (mg/1)
Iron
51100
5000
Manganese
1460
150
TDS
2470
1200
G16S
Boron
8670
2000
Manganese
6270
150
TDS
1560
1200
Well
Number Contaminant
Sample Result
Total ug/I
GW Limit
Total ug/l
ANSWER :
SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in this Paragraph of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every
one of them. SLAS further notes that no Paragraph 33 exists in this count of the Complaint
.
35
.
Subsequent to the November 26, 2002, inspection, the Illinois EPA inspector
noted that benzene had been elevated at downgradient well G27S
for some time
.
In 2001,
benzene tested at 8.0 ug/1 on March 3, 2001, 6.8 ug/l on September 8, 2001 and 7.6 ug/I on
October 27, 2001
.
ANSWER :
SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one
of them .
36 .
At all times relevant to this complaint, St . Louis Auto Shredding has deposited
contaminants upon the land in such place and manner so as to create a water pollution hazard and
has caused, threatened or allowed the discharge of contaminants into the environment,
including
the groundwater, so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution in Illinois,
or so as to violate
regulations or standards adopted by the Board
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 36 of the Complaint references or otherwise
construes language from IEPA's regulations, no response is required,
as the language of the
regulations speaks for itself Additionally, Complainant has failed to specify the time period
denoted by the phrase "at all times relevant to this complaint" or any location on which such
27
G23S
Acetone
3.85
3 (AGQS value)
G24S
Sulfate
1450
637.431
G27S
Benzene
8.18
5 (Class I GW 620
Standards)
Acetone
3.39
3
G28S
Sulfate
1570
637.431
G29S
Acetone
3.37
3
alleged deposits took place . As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to
the truth of the allegations in this Paragraph, and therefore denies each and every one of them .
SLAS denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint
.
Responding further, SLAS specifically denies that it has deposited contaminants upon the land in
such place and manner so as to create a water pollution hazard, and further denies that it has
caused, threatened or allowed the discharge of contaminants into the groundwater so as to cause
water pollution
.
37 .
At all times relevant to this complaint, St. Louis Auto Shredding has caused,
threatened or allowed the release of contaminants into the groundwater so as to cause
groundwater quality standards for boron, iron, manganese, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and
vinyl chloride to be exceeded .
ANSWER :
Complainant has failed to specify the time period denoted by the phrase
"at all times relevant to this complaint" or any location at which such alleged release took place
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in
this Paragraph, and therefore denies each and every one of them . Responding further, SLAS
denies that it has caused, threatened or allowed contaminants to be released into groundwater
such that groundwater quality standards have been exceeded
.
38 .
By depositing contaminants upon the land in such place and manner so as to
create a water pollution hazard, the Respondents have violated 12(d) of the Act, 415 ILCS
5/12(d) (2004)
.
ANSWER
:
To the extent that Paragraph 38 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for itself. SLAS
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and specifically
denies that it has created a water pollution hazard in violation of Section 12(d) of the Act
.
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
28
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies
each and
every one of them .
39
.
By causing, threatening, or allowing the discharge of contaminants
into the
environment so as to cause or tend to cause water pollution, the Respondents
have violated
Section 12(a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 39 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for itself . SLAS
denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, and specifically
denies that it has discharged contaminants into the environment so as to cause or tend to
cause
water pollution in violation of Section 12(a) of the Act
.
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period
and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies
each and
every one of them
.
40 .
By causing, threatening,
or allowing the release of contaminants into
the
groundwater so as to cause groundwater quality standards for boron, iron, manganese,
sulfate,
total dissolved solids, and vinyl chloride to be exceeded, the Respondents have violated Sections
620.405 and 620.410 of the Board's Groundwater Quality Standards, 35 Ill . Adm. Code 620.405
and 620.410, and thereby violated Section 21(d)(2) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/2(d)(2) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 40 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act or IEPA's regulations, no response is required, as the language therein speaks
for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint,
and further incorporates its response to Paragraph 37 of this Count of the Complaint. SLAS also
specifically denies that it has violated Section 21 (d)(2) of the Act.
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period
and the
location at the site to which these allegations
apply .
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
29
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them
.
COUNT V
MARCH24, 2003,OPEN DUMPING VIOLATIONS
1-5 .
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs 1 through
4 and 27 of Count I as paragraphs 1 through
5
of this Count V
.
ANSWER :
SLAS reincorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 4 and 27
above, but notes that, due to the Complaint's non-consecutive paragraph numbering, multiple
Paragraph 27's exist. As such, SLAS incorporates its responses to any and all Paragraph 27's
above, as well
.
6 .
Section
21
of the Act,
415
ILCS
5/21
(2004),
provides, in pertinent part, as
follows :
No persons shall
:
a .
Cause or allow the open dumping of any waste
.
p .
In violation of subdivision (a) of this Section, cause or
allow the open dumping of any waste in a manner which
results in any of the following occurrences at the dump site
:
1 .
Litter .
ANSWER
:
The allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself
.
7
.
Section
3.305
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/3 .305
(2004), provides the following
definition
:
"OPEN DUMPING" means the consolidation of refuse from one
or more sources at a disposal site that does not fulfill the
requirements of a sanitary landfill .
30
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself.
8 .
Section 3.445 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3 .445 (2004), provides the following
definition :
"SANITARY LANDFILL" means a facility permitted
by the
Agency for the disposal of waste on land meeting the requirements
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, P .L. 94-580, and
regulations thereunder, and without creating nuisances or hazards
to public health or safety, by confining the refuse to the smallest
practical volume and covering it with a layer of earth at the
conclusion of each day's operation, or by such other methods and
intervals as the board may provide by regulation .
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint require' no response, as
the language of the Act speaks for itself.
9
.
Section 721 .102(e)(2)(C)
of the Board's regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code
721.102(e)(2)(C), provides
:
(e)(2)
The following materials are solid wastes,
even if the
recycling involves use, reuse, or return to the
original
process
(described
in
subsections
(e)(1)(A) through
(e)(1)(C) of this Section :
(C)
Materials accumulated speculatively ;
ANSWER :
The allegations
in
Paragraph 9 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the regulations speaks for itself.
10
.
Section
721.101(c)(8)
of the
Board's
regulations,
35
Ill . Adm .
Code
72 1 . 101 (c)(8), provides :
(c)
For purposes of Sections 721 .102' and 721 .106 :
.
(8)
A material is "accumulated speculatively" if it is
accumulated before being recycled . A material is
not accumulated speculatively,
however, if the
person accumulating it can show that the material is
potentially recyclable and had a feasible means of
being recycled ; and that
during the calendar year
3 1
(commencing
on
January 1) - the
amount
of
material that is recycled, or transferred to a different
site for recycling, equals at least 75 percent by
weight or volume of the amount of that material
accumulated at the beginning of the period .
In
calculating the percentage of turnover, the
75
percent requirement is to be applied to each material
of the same type
(i .e ., slags from a single smelting
process) that is recycled in the same way (i .e., from
which the same material is recovered or that is used
in the same way). Materials accumulating in units
that would be exempt from regulation under Section
721 .104(c) are not to be included in making the
calculation. (Materials that are already defined as
solid wastes also are not to be included in making
the calculation). Materials are no longer in this
category once they are removed from accumulation
for recycling, however.
ANSWER :
The allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint require no response, as
the language of the regulations speaks for itself.
11
.
On March 24, 2003, the Illinois EPA conducted an inspection of the facility
.
During the site visit, the Illinois EPA spoke with the site superintendent who stated that no waste
auto fluff had been removed from the site since 1997, and the unprocessed auto fluff pile was
awaiting one or two final processes . One of these final processes is through the Heavy Media
Building and the other process is the Eddy Current System (ECS) . According to the 2002 year
end Illinois Nonhazardous Special Waste annual Report Site Information Form submitted by the
facility, the facility had on site 167,335 cubic yards of unprocessed auto fluff, which has been
accumulating since the beginning of 1998
.
ANSWER :
SLAS admits to submitting the 2002 year end Illinois Nonhazardous
Special Waste annual Report Site Information Form to IEPA . SLAS lacks sufficient information
to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph I I of the
Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them . Responding further, SLAS
specifically denies that there was any "waste auto fluff' pile on site . Any "unprocessed auto
fluff' on site was material being processed and, therefore, any accumulation that may have
occurred at any point in time did not constitute speculative accumulation . As a result, any auto
32
fluff pile that may have existed on site would not have constituted waste. Furthermore, SLAS
states that no "unprocessed auto fluff pile" currently exists at the site .
12
.
During the March 24, 2003, site visit, the Illinois EPA estimated the accumulation
was approximately 175,000 cubic yards. At the southern edge of the L-shaped pile, the Illinois
EPA observed a water hose at the base of the pile and a water sprinkler at the top of the
pile. A
small pile
of
dirt for fire control purposes was also located nearby.
ANSWER :
SLAS admits that it has a water hose and water sprinkler on site as part of
the facility's fire suppression system . Responding further, SLAS specifically denies that there
was any. "waste auto fluff"pile on site . Any "unprocessed auto fluff' on site was material being
processed and, therefore, any accumulation that may have occurred at any point in time did not
constitute speculative accumulation . As a result, any_ auto fluff pile that may have existed on site
would not have constituted waste. Furthermore, SLAS states that no "unprocessed auto fluff
pile" currently exists at the site . SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the
truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and therefore
denies each and every one of them
.
13 .
According to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 721 .102(e)(2)(C) and 721 .101(c)(8), this
unprocessed auto fluff is a speculatively accumulated material and, thus, may be classified as
waste .
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 13 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes IEPA's regulations, no response is required, as the language of the regulations speaks
for itself. . To the extent that Paragraph 13 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, no
response is required. SLAS lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one
of
them. SLAS further denies that it is or has been engaged in speculative accumulation, as that
term is defined in the Board's regulations and denies that it is in violation of 35 Ill . Adm. Code
721.102(e)(2)(C) and 721 .101(c)(8) .
33
14
.
Based on the March 24, 2003, site visit, Violation Notices, dated May 20, 2003,
were sent to the Respondents. On October 9, 2003, the Illinois EPA mailed subsequent Notices
of Intent to Pursue Legal Action letters to the Respondents
.
ANSWER :
SLAS admits that it received. from IEPA Violation Notices, dated May 20,
2003, and Notices of Intent to Pursue Legal Action letters, dated October 9, 2003. SLAS lacks
sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore denies each and every one of them
.
15
.
On a date better known to the Respondents, but no later than 1997 and continuing
through the date on which this Complaint is filed, the Respondents have caused or allowed the
open dumping of waste at a disposal site upon its property . The site is not permitted by the
Illinois EPA as a sanitary landfill, nor does the disposal site meet the requirements of the Act and
of the regulations and the standards promulgated thereunder
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 15 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes any requirements from the Act or IEPA's regulations, no response is required, as the
language of those documents speaks for itself. SLAS denies the remaining allegations in this
Paragraph of the Complaint, and specifically denies that it has caused or allowed open dumping
of waste .
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them .
16 .
By causing or allowing the open dumping of waste, the Respondents have
violated Section 21 (a) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21 (a) (2004) .
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 16 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for itself. SLAS
denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph of the Complaint, and specifically denies that
it has caused or allowed open dumping of waste in violation of Section 21 (a) of the Act
.
34
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply. As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form, a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies eachh and
every one of them .
17
.
On a date better known to the Respondents, but no later than 1997 and continuing,
through the date on which this Complaint is filed, the Respondents have disposed or stored waste
at a site upon its property, or transported waste for disposal or storage to a site upon its property,
and such site does not meet the requirements of the Act and of the standards and regulations
promulgated thereunder ..
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 17 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act or IEPA's regulations, no response is required, as the language of those
documents speaks for itself SLAS denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the
Complaint .
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply. As a result, SLAS. lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them .
18
.
By disposing or storing or transporting waste at or to a site which does not meet
the requirements of the Act and of the standards and regulations promulgated thereunder, the
Respondents have violated Section 21(e) of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(e) (2004)
.
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 18 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for itself . SLAS
denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph of the Complaint, and specifically denies that
it has violated Section 21(e) of the Act .
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply. As a result, SLAS' lacks sufficient
35
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them .
19 .
On a date better known to the Respondents, but no later than 1997 and continuing
through the date on which this Complaint is filed, the Respondents have caused or allowed the
open dumping of waste in a manner which has resulted in litter .
ANSWER :
SLAS denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and
specifically denies that it has caused or allowed open dumping of waste in a manner resulting in
litter .
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them .
20 .
By causing or allowing the open dumping of waste in a manner which has
resulted in litter at or from the dump site, the Respondents have violated Section 21(p)(1) of the
Act, 415 ILCS 5/21(p)(1) (2004) .
ANSWER :
To the extent that Paragraph 20 of the Complaint cites or otherwise
construes language from the Act, no response is required, as the language of the Act speaks for
itself.
SLAS denies the remaining allegations in this Paragraph of the Complaint, and
specifically denies that it has violated Section 21(p)(1) of the Act
.
Responding further, Complainant has failed to delineate both the time period and the
location at the site to which these allegations apply
.
As a result, SLAS lacks sufficient
information to form a belief as to the truth of these allegations, and therefore denies each and
every one of them
.
36
(312) 222-9350
Respectfully submitted,
NATIONAL CITY ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC,
an Illinois limited liability corporation, and
NATIONAL CITY RECYCLING, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability corporation,
37
Dated: February
,
2006
John B. Simon
Bill S. Forcade
Steven M. Siros
Jenner & Block LLP
One IBM Plaza
Chicago,
IL 60611
